Ocean News

Gone fishing: Loss of ocean predators has impact on climate change strategies | EurekAlert

 

http://www.johntommasi.com/blog/unintended-consequenses-protected-seals-depleted-fish-stocks

"In 2012, NOAA allowed commercial fishermen to catch 6,700 metric tons of Cod, 1.1 million pounds of flounder and 9000 metric tons of haddock (2010 figures) in the Gulf of Maine. This translates to 97,643 pounds per day, a considerable amount. Hold that thought.

In the 1960’s, it was estimated that there were approximately 10,000 seals remaining in the Gulf of
Maine, the primary species being Gray(880 pounds), Harp(300 pounds), Hooded(440 pounds) and Harbor(245 pounds). Seal weights are from NOAA. As a result of the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972, all seals became protected and the population has conservatively increased to 100,000 in the Gulf. The penalty for killing a protected marine mammal is $100,000 and up to 1 year in jail.

A seal can eat up to 8% of its body weight/day. If you multiply 100,000 x .08 x an average weight of 500 lbs, then seals in the Gulf of Maine can consume up to 4 million pounds of fish/day. Considerably more than what fishermen are catching. Even if you take a conservative estimate, and assume the average seal weight is 250 pounds, that figure becomes 2 million pounds of fish per day, still considerably more than what is allocated to cod, flounder and haddock fisherman.

It appears the unintended consequences of protecting seals doesn’t end with depleted fish stocks. Cape Cod in 2012 experienced its first shark attack (from a great white) in 75 years. According to Greg Skomal, a marine biologist with the Massachusetts Division of Marine Fisheries, “Sharks like to eat seals and because the gray seal population has really grown dramatically in the last couple of years, they’re (sharks) targeting them”.

As a result of protecting seals, fishing stocks are being depleted, sharks are being attracted to family beaches and some fishermen are going out of business. Maybe it’s time to lift the ban on seals as a protected species."


IMO
The idea of working in concert is always a good one. But first you have to have a rational goal and an achievable plan of action that all can agree on.
And more importantly, you have to understand the problem well, and the consequences of proposed solutions.
In other words, don't go off half cocked.
The seal protection fiasco is only one of many well intended but ill-considered government programs.

We DON'T understand climate and it's drivers very well. The proof is the failed predictions of the climate models.
We DO understand the consequences of programs like carbon taxes. Australia tried it and repealed it as too devastating to their economy.

An arrogant claim as "the science is settled", it's all man's fault, is symptomatic of a closed mind and NOT conducive to learning anything unsupportive of that mindset/religion/political agenda.

So working in concert sounds good in theory, and impossible in current reality.
We don't know HOW to adjust or control climate and will NEVER be able to control people for very long. They rebel! History teaches that!
Revolting, isn't it?

Also, society and government never invented anything. All great ideas were formed in the mind of an individual. We revere these great minds.
Squelching individualism and discouraging alternative ideas and views, inhibits the very creativity we need.

 

^{LOL. Sure.}

 

The seal/fish numbers are interesting & I'm not arguing with them - probably within error bounds.

The *big* point you're overlooking is, the seal numbers are increasing from a very low base where they were driven by industrial scale slaughter. So they're bouncing back, good, that's exactly what we want.

If seals attract sharks, good, that's another part of the ecosystem regenerating. Eventually there'll be a dynamic predator-prey balance between humans, seals, fish and sharks plus other top predators.

In short I completely fail to see what your problem might be. And don't start crying for the poor fishermen - if any single group has been responsible for massive over-exploitation of wild animal populations, it's fishermen. They have a long and sorry history of over-fishing then running to Government to stop other people entering the fishery when yields start declining, then once the fishery is closed to new entrants, fishing it even harder. Pox on all of them.

FWIW I took my first university degree in population ecology.

PDW

 

PDW
I respect your expertise and knowledge.
I'd be in favor of a moratorium on fishing certain species until they rebound.
Letting the seals mob eat them into extinction doesn't seem wise. At present, which is more endangered? Seals? Or cod?
My point was those who think with their hearts are too quick to initiate ignorant actions with far reaching complications.
Ecologists and environmentalists should be required to take the Hippocratic oath that doctors do.
"First, do no harm!"
Too much knee jerk impetuousness going on for my liking.
Simple solutions to complex problems are invariably wrong.

 

Actually, climate scientists have been very cautious in their recommendations regarding geo-technical fixes to AGW. They would quite agree with you that spreading the oceans with iron powder to promote algae growth, or seeding clouds to increase their reflectivity are fraught with problems. Their primary recommended solution, cutting back on CO₂ emissions, is simply a return to what is 'natural'.

The climate models are generally pretty good, and getting better. The big remaining questions are how fast can climate systems change (e.g. how fast can ocean circulations change, or how fast can ice sheets melt), and whether there are any irreversible tipping points, and how close are we to them?

It's difficult for one country to justify carbon taxes when the rest of the world is not taxing carbon. Intense efforts are now being made in anticipation of the December meeting in Paris to hammer out international agreements for how to slow down carbon emissions.

The government is absolutely essential to funding scientific research, especially primary research. Businesses mostly get involved only in applied research where they think they can make a buck from the results. While the feckless Republicans cut funding for scientific research the Chinese are pouring huge amounts of money into science. And then, in a few years, we will wonder why they are eating our lunch.

 

‘We Need an Energy Miracle’: An Interview with Bill Gates | The Atlantic

 

As I pointed out in earlier threads, mankind's contribution to co2 is so miniscule tiny, if man disappeared overnight and thence emitted nothing, it would be unnoticed by the forces of climate.
So what effect would mankind budgeting carbon emissions have?
Nada
Communist Maurice Strong started the ecology/carbon trade scheme in the UN, intending to bring down the wests standard of living and energy consumption to 3rd world levels.

In communism/socialism, everybody ends up equal. Equally poor. Except the ruling elite.
Strong became a billionaire from his carbon trade scheme.

 

Imaginarynumber.
You and those who believe with you, need to come up with attractive packaging for your scheme. because as it is, you won't get co-operation. And you can't force co-operation, even if you make laws demanding your position.
You only make lawbreakers, rebels, and a nasty backlash.

 

The international meeting in December in Paris is voluntary. Whatever is agreed to is non-binding. However, if a country decides, say, to implement a carbon tax on hydrocarbon fuels, I doubt whether paying it will be voluntary for the citizens of that country. But in principle such a tax won't be any different than the Federal or State taxes on fuel that are already levied. And with fuel prices relatively low now might be a good time to enact such a tax. Wouldn't seem to hurt quite as much.

 

Meet the girl who dives with great white sharks | Red Bull

Shark Whisperer: Woman Swims With Great Whites in Perfect Harmony | ABC News


OCEAN RAMSEY GREAT WHITE SHARKS, OCEAN RAMSEY FREEDIVING WITH SHARKS, SWIMMING WITH GREAT WHITES

Huffington Post interview

 

That is madness.

 

There be madness here.

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_Irwin

"Steve Irwin
Australia

Cause of death
Stingray injury to the heart

Nationality
Australian

Other names
"The Crocodile Hunter"

Occupation
Naturalist
Zoologist
Conservationist
Television personality
Herpetologist

Years active
1997–2006

Notable work
The Crocodile Hunter

Spouse(s)
Terri Irwin (m. 1992–2006)

Children
Bindi Sue Irwin (b. 1998)
Robert Clarence Irwin (b. 2003)

Parent(s)
Bob Irwin
Lyn Irwin

Website
Australia Zoo

Stephen Robert "Steve" Irwin (22 February 1962 – 4 September 2006), nicknamed "The Crocodile Hunter", was an Australian wildlife expert,[1][2] television personality, and conservationist. Irwin achieved worldwide fame from the television series The Crocodile Hunter, an internationally broadcast wildlife documentary series which he co-hosted with his wife Terri. Together, the couple also owned and operated Australia Zoo, founded by Irwin's parents in Beerwah, about 80 kilometres (50 mi) north of the Queensland state capital city of Brisbane. Irwin died on 4 September 2006 after being pierced in the chest by a stingray barb while filming an underwater documentary film titled Ocean's Deadliest. The Sea Shepherd Conservation Society ship MY Steve Irwin was named in his honour."

The operable syllable in expert is EX.

 

Do you think congress is stupid enough to vote for it?
The business of congress first and foremost, is getting re-elected.